furrykef wrote:I think the point we're getting tripped up on is, if a modern name is written in what was historically 万葉仮名, it's hard to argue that such a particular name would be equivalent to writing it in runic letters, and I don't think anybody's arguing that it is. But 万葉仮名 as a complete writing system is a good analogue to runic letters, because it is not in modern use for that purpose and a document written in it will generally not be understood except by people who specialize in it.

First of all, we are not necessarily talking about 万葉仮名 as a "complete writing system". Remember that Yudan's sentence could also be interpreted as "the specific kanji in iroha using 万葉仮名" in which case neither the kanji nor the usage is archaic.

And also remember that 万葉仮名 was never intended to be a "complete writing system" - it was devised originally for the specific purpose of capturing proper names, and is still used in that sense today. So, as a writing system, it is still being used today in the same way that it was originally designed to be used.

Now, we know that there exists literature written using 万葉仮名, iroha being an example. But it was never widely used this way.

So the point remains: we are not talking about a writing system that was used widely in the past, but is no longer used. It was invented for a specific purpose, and continues to be used for that purpose. There was a wider application of it to capture spoken language, which is no longer used (except possibly in special circumstances).

The real point here is that Japanese writing systems are not mutually exclusive. One writing system did not "replace" another. It's not as if 漢文 was replaced by 万葉仮名 which was then replaced by ひらがな and カタカナ. All these systems more or less operated side by side right up to World War II. The script reform that happened post World War II did simplify things, but all systems are still in operation today. 漢文 for 漢語, 万葉仮名 for (some) proper names, ひらがな for native Japanese constructions, and カタカナfor non-Chinese loanwords.

There are people who would like to see 漢文 and 万葉仮名 become obsolete. Specifically by replacing them with カタカナ. This would greatly reduce the amount on 漢字 used, and arguably will make it far easier to master the writing system. One of the aims of 当用漢字 (and to a lesser extent 常用漢字) was to encourage this to happen.

Christine, unless you're prepared to argue with the person who has been kind enough to tutor the JLPT study groups for the past few years, perhaps you should review your JLPT3 grammar, or, at least, your understanding of how こと works on compound sentences.

この場合は、A2のとき、A1の状態がまだ存在してます(? 英語でThe state expressed by A1 is still in progress/still applies)。たとえば、「雑誌を読んでいすに座る」は違う意味だと思います。いすに座って、もう座っていないときに雑誌を読むではなくて、いすに座って、座っているままで読むという意味ですね。

So as these examples indicate, A1 and A2 don't necessarily have to be consecutive actions, but A1 at least has to be "actualized" (i.e. made real) before A2 occurs.

As far as I know, this is generally how て works (A = action, S = stative verb/adj)A1てA2 = A1, then A2 (A1 is not necessarily completely finished when A2 occurs, but it has to have at least begun)SてA = Action A is done after State S is actualizedAてS = Action A is done, resulting in State SS1てS2 = States 1 and 2 both apply, S1 can come before S2 but it doesn't have to (S2 cannot be first, though)This doesn't describe 100% of cases, but AFAIK it mostly holds true.

This sentence describes two states as far as I can see, yet I would argue that A2 most likely is a state that has lasted longer than state A1.

What is your take on that?

Similar states would be something like.

私の部屋は狭くて暗いです。

This example is one where one couldn't really say one state has precedence over the other.

Well, when you're talking chained noun-phrases and adjectives like the above, they are states, not actions, so you should be marking them S1 and S2 (using Chris' notation), though I'm not sure the same rules apply as with stative verbs.

This sentence describes two states as far as I can see, yet I would argue that S2 most likely is a state that has lasted longer than state S1.

If the two predicates are states, they don't have to be sequential. In cases like this (and the next example) it's just two states that both apply. The only requirement is that the first state be actualized when the second state is active, so I suppose I shouldn't have said that S2 can't come first.

richvh wrote:Christine, unless you're prepared to argue with the person who has been kind enough to tutor the JLPT study groups for the past few years, perhaps you should review your JLPT3 grammar, or, at least, your understanding of how こと works on compound sentences.

Actually, I did. I consulted a professional Japanese Language consultant at the Japan Foundation, whose job is to provide help to Japanese teachers (that was the "teacher" I was referring who I said wouldn't agree with you). I don't believe in asking questions on Internet forums because you get unqualified opinions that are probably conflicting.

All this debate about こと is actually kind of missing the point, as well as personalising this into me vs you or Yudan or coco.

Take me out of the equation. My opinion on this actually doesn't matter.

Look at this strictly from the context of the original sentence in the dictionary definition.

You now know, or should know, that the author of this definition did not intend the こと to include printing. "Printing" is a contextual clarification for the こと.

How do we know that? From the context of the overall dictionary entry. Plus the fact that a rival dictionary has a definition that is very similar but does not include printing.

So you have a concrete example of a Japanese language lexicographer constructing a sentence not intending こと to span て conjunction.

I suggest once you find the answer to this question, it may help your conceptualisation of how こと works.

I do recommend you seek professional and qualified advice, not just opinions of native speakers on the Internet. As far as I know, an initial consultation with a Japanese language consultant at the Japan Foundation on a question like this should not cost you anything.

But don't just seek advice on the sentence in isolation. Seek advice based on the entire dictionary definition, plus the alternative dictionary definition. Then broaden the discussion into こと in general. That's what I did.

Last edited by Christine Tham on Thu 01.15.2009 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Christine Tham wrote:Actually, I did. I consulted a professional Japanese Language consultant at the Japan Foundation, whose job is to provide help to Japanese teachers (that was the "teacher" I was referring who I said wouldn't agree with you).

Oh dear, this is not going to turn in to one of those "but my native speaker is better than your native speaker" kind of things, is it...

Christine Tham wrote:I don't believe in asking questions on Internet forums because you get unqualified opinions that are probably conflicting.

But that makes your presence here somewhat contradicting, doesn't it? You don't want to ask questions because of the unqualified and conflicting opinions you say you'll get... yet your own opinions are unqualified as well, so you should know (by your own logic) of how little help your answers will be to others. Why exactly are you replying then, I wonder? Just to recommend people to seek help from qualified professionals?

Last edited by JaySee on Thu 01.15.2009 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JaySee wrote:But that makes your presence here somewhat contradicting, doesn't it? You don't want to ask questions because of the unqualified and conflicting opinions you say you'll get... yet your own opinions are unqualified as well, so you should know (by your own logic) of how little help your answers will be to others. Why exactly are you replying then, I wonder? Just to recommend people to seek help from qualified professionals?

I'm not holding myself here as a Japanese language expert, and I have never said my opinion is "qualified". All I did initially was offer my translation of a sentence (and at that time I actually said the translation was sloppy).

richvh offered an alternative translation, and I said my teacher would probably not agree with that translation.

Nocturnal Ocean asked me to justify my translation without referring to my teacher, which I did.

You will also note, I explicitly did not use the line of "I know a native speaker better than your native speaker ..." earlier in this thread even though I could have. The only reason I mentioned the consultant was in direct response to richvh's post.

As I've mentioned before, rather than making this into a debate about unqualified opinions, I recommend seek professional, qualified advice.

For the sake of peace, I will refrain from injecting my personal opinion into this any further. In any case, I have already stated my case several times, and I still stand by it.

I think it is important to remember though that in cases like these, which are rather ambiguous, there might not necessarily be only one correct way of interpretation, especially if even among native speakers discord exists about it. I don't think the opinion of one native speaker can or should be held in higher regard that of other native speakers, because all of them are equally capable of telling you what sounds natural to them and what doesn't, and how certain sentences are interpreted.

So, if coco says she interprets 'koto' as referring to both parts of the sentence, she is correct, and if your teacher tells you that in his/her opinion it doesn't, then he or she is correct as well. I would say it's just a small linguistic ambiguity.

richvh wrote:Christine, unless you're prepared to argue with the person who has been kind enough to tutor the JLPT study groups for the past few years, perhaps you should review your JLPT3 grammar, or, at least, your understanding of how こと works on compound sentences.

Actually, I did. I consulted a professional Japanese Language consultant at the Japan Foundation, whose job is to provide help to Japanese teachers (that was the "teacher" I was referring who I said wouldn't agree with you). I don't believe in asking questions on Internet forums because you get unqualified opinions that are probably conflicting.

The problem with this is that it isn't transparent - neither your question to the consultant, nor his reply are a matter of public record, all we know about them has been filtered through you. That's fine for your own benefit; it's not so good for ongoing, public discussion, as we can examine neither the phrasing of the question, nor the phrasing of the reply. It's argument from authority, and an authority we can't cross-check.

Also, disparaging coco's contribution to this thread doesn't really help your image, as she has spent years on this forum giving grammar advice to many, many people, so she has immense credibility here; frankly, given a choice between believing coco, and some nameless teacher who has somehow morphed into a consultant (this may really be legitimate, but it reeks of the "people support me in email" tactic common among usenet kooks), coco wins hands down, and I think most here would agree.

In the end I don't know how much difference it makes; whether or not the こと applies to both or just one, the meaning of the definition is still to publish something that has been printed. (I still believe it applies to both, but that's just my opinion.)